coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1965, 1973, 1967, 1971, 1966 and 1970 respectively. The first applicant was in Mardin prison and the remaining applicants were in Diyarbakir prison at the time of their applications to the Court.
5.  The applicants were all arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah. They were subsequently remanded in custody.
6.  However, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Law-Decree no. 430, which allowed them to take further measures within the framework of the state of emergency, a single judge at the State Security Court authorised the applicants’ return from prison to the Anti-terror branch of the relevant Security Directorate for further interrogation for a duration not exceeding ten days.
7.  All the applicants save for the first applicant returned to prison before the ten day period was over. In respect of the first applicant, a single judge at the State Security Court extended, on 5 August 2002, his detention at the Security Directorate for another ten days. The applicant’s lawyer objected. His objection was accepted by the State Security Court and the first applicant returned to prison.
8.  The details are indicated in the table below:
 
APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF THE APPLICANT
DATE OF REMAND IN CUSTODY
DATE OF TRANSFER TO THE SECURITY DIRECTORATE
DATE OF RETURN TO PRISON
33412/01
Ekrem Zerey
26/07/2002
26/07/2002
09/08/2002
30229/02
Rıfat Demir
07/12/2001
08/12/2001
10/12/2001
30229/02
Mehmet Garip
Özer
07/12/2001
08/12/2001
10/12/2001
30229/02
Ahmet Şahin
07/12/2001
08/12/2001
10/12/2001
30263/02
Ahmet Durmaz 
07/12/2001
08/12/2001
17/12/2001
30263/02
Davut Şahin
07/12/2001
08/12/2001
17/12/2001
4.  The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Beograd. The second applicant is a joint stock company with its seat in Beograd.
5.  On 11 October 1991 the second applicant directly instituted enforcement proceedings in the Novi Sad Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud u Novom Sadu) against a certain company V.
6.  On 30 October 1991 the court issued an enforcement order. Since V. filed an objection, the case was transformed into civil proceedings.
7.  The second applicant amended its claim on four occasions: on 4 May and 19 November 1993, 9 February and 12 October 1994.
8.  On 15 February 1995 the court gave a judgment in the second applicant’s favour, accepting its claim in part. On 6 October 1995 the court gave a supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda) in the case.
9.  On 30 May 1996 the Beograd High Commercial Court (Viši Trgovinski sud u Beogradu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case because of factual shortcomings.
10.  By this time, four different judges had been assigned to hear the second applicant’s case, the last change of judges having occurred on 23 January 2003.
11.  On 11 November 2004 the court appointed an expert, ordering him to prepare his opinion within 30 days. This expert submitted his opinion on 14 October 2005.
12.  The court subsequently held hearings on 30 November 2005, 25 January and 13 February 2006. The hearing scheduled for 20 December 2005 was adjourned because the second applicant failed to appear.
13.  On 13 February 2006 the court closed the main hearing and gave a judgment dismissing the second applicant’s claim.
14.  On appeal, on 3 November 2006 the Beograd High Commercial Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
15.  In the resumed proceedings, on 8 December 2006 the Novi Sad Commercial Court stayed the proceedings because, meanwhile, on 22 March 2006 the Zrenjanin Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud u Zrenjaninu) had opened bankruptcy proceedings against the second applicant.
16.  The proceedings resumed on 16 February 2007, when the Novi Sad Commercial Court declared that it no longer had territorial jurisdiction in the matter and sent the case file to the Zrenjanin Commercial Court.
7.  The applicant, Pedro Katunda Kambangu, is an Angolan national who was born in 1968. At present he lives in Houston, the United States.
8.  The applicant arrived in Lithuania on 2 March 1998 with a transit visa valid until 4 March 1998. On the latter date the immigration police ordered the applicant to leave Lithuania by 9 March 1998.
9.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant was arrested while trying to cross the border between Lithuania and Belarus. He alleged that his passport had been stolen, and that he had intended to go to the Embassy of Angola in Moscow to obtain a new passport. The applicant was arrested for violating the Lithuanian immigration rules requiring possession of a valid passport for foreign travel. From 10 to 12 March 1998 he was held in police custody in Vilnius.
10.  According to the applicant, on 12 March 1998 he was moved from Vilnius to the Pabradė Aliens Registration Centre (“ARC”) on the ground that he was staying in Lithuania illegally. The applicant alleged that the conditions of his stay at the ARC amounted to a deprivation of liberty. In particular, he was not allowed to leave the ARC, save for the purpose of leaving the country, and was subjected to an overall strict disciplinary regime. The Government argued that the applicant himself had requested the accommodation at the ARC, and that he was allowed, “in case of necessity”, to leave the premises of the ARC, if accompanied by a guard.
11.  On 22 June 1998 the applicant applied for asylum.
12.  The applicant's complaints about his continued stay at the ARC were dismissed by the Higher Administrative Court on 11 October 1999, and by the Court of Appeal on 7 December 1999. The courts contended that the applicant's stay at the ARC did not amount to a deprivation of liberty.
13.  Having obtained a new passport from the Embassy of Angola in Moscow, the applicant left the ARC on 21 January 2000 upon having expressed his wish to leave the country. It appears that he voluntarily left the country on 21 January 2000.
4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1952 and 1974 respectively and live in the town of Novovoronezh, the Voronezh Region.
5.  It appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of the applicants' pension and in 2000 they brought a court claim against the authority in this connection.
6.  By judgment of 4 August 2000 the Novovoronezhskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the claim and ordered the authority to pay the first applicant 1,687.78 Russian roubles (RUR – approximately 55 euros (EUR)), the second applicant RUR 2,053.57 (approximately EUR 75) and the third applicant RUR 1,262.96 (approximately EUR 40) in damages.
7.  On 14 August 2000 the judgment came into force and the District Court issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the bailiffs.
8.  According to the information submitted by the Government, the court decision was enforced in full on 2 December 2005, which is five years, three months and nineteen days after its entry into force.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan).
6. On 13 April 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two others, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of participating in separatist activities. The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 25 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of as charged and sentenced him to death, which sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. The judgment was ex officio subject to appeal.
8.  On 17 January 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his written opinion to the 9th Division of the Court of Cassation, in which he had argued that the Court of Cassation should quash the applicant's conviction on account of the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant. He opined that the applicant should have been sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which punishes membership of an illegal organisation, instead of Article 125.
9.  On 20 April 2002 the Court of Cassation held a hearing, differed with the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor, and upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant's representative did not attend this hearing. The decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant and his representative on 1 May 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1955 and 1976 respectively, and live in Oradea.
5.  In 1950, the two-floors building and appurtenant land situated in Bucharest, W. Filderman no. 1, the property of the applicants' parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.
6.  On 13 April 1999 the applicants' action for recovery of possession of immovable property was upheld in part by an enforceable judgment which acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful and ordered the administrative authorities to return the building and appurtenant land to the applicants, with the exception of a studio flat at the second floor, sold by the applicants' parents in 1945.
7.  In spite of having the judicial recognition of their property right, the applicants were not able to recover possession over flat no. 1 because the State had sold it together with the appurtenant land to the tenants, under Law no. 112/1995.
8.  On 11 October 1999 the applicants requested the court to find that the sale by the State was null and void. They considered that, as the nationalisation had been unlawful, the State was not the rightful owner and consequently it could not lawfully have sold any part of the building.
9.  On 12 September 2000 the Bucharest Tribunal, by a final decision, dismissed the request for the rescission of the sale contract on the ground that the applicants brought the action for the recovery of possession after the sale of flat no. 1 by the State and that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith. The tribunal had not granted any compensation to the applicants.
10.  On 28 June 2001 the Bucharest Court of First Instance admitted by a final decision the applicants' action to have acknowledged their right of property regarding the whole building.
11.  On 13 February 2002 the applicants claimed compensation for the sale of flat no. 1 under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. At present, they have not received any compensation.
12.  On 16 May 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the applicants' action for the recovery of possession of flat no. 1, considering that although the applicants were the rightful owners, the sale was performed in good faith and therefore the tenants could not be evacuated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region.
5.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant, acting as a participant of rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the 1980s, applied to a local council, requesting them to grant him a flat.
6.  Having faced a refusal, the applicant filed a suit in court.
7.  By judgment of the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul of 14 October 2002 the local authorities were ordered to grant the applicant a flat of at least 18 square metres. It became final on 27 November 2002.
8.  On 16 December 2002 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
9.  It appears that on 13 January 2005 the local authorities, acting in agreement with the applicant and with his financial participation, purchased a three-room flat of 28 square metres for the applicant.
10.  The contract has been registered on 14 January 2005.
11.  Four days later, on 18 January 2005, the local authorities transferred the money for the flat to the seller's account.
12.  According to the Government, the judgment of 14 October 2002 should be considered as fully enforced on the latter date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 19 July 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody by officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate in the course of an operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front).
6. On 31 July 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.
7.  On 16 August 1995 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant as well as twelve other persons with membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
8.  On 5 June 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the members of the DHKP/C, an offence defined in Article 169 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment.
9.  The applicant appealed against the judgment.
10.  On 17 April 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the Ankara State Security Court’s judgment.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant was released from detention.
4.  On 18 August and 16 September 1987 and 16 May 1990 the applicant concluded three contracts with the General Directorate for Water and Infrastructure (İSKİ) (“the General Directorate”) and undertook the construction of parts of the water infrastructure in İstanbul.
5.  Subsequent to the failure of the General Directorate to pay the applicant the relevant fees, on 10 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court and requested the court to order the payment of 10,279,231,935 Turkish liras (TRL), alleging that the General Directorate had failed to comply with the contract of 16 May 1990.
6.  In 1999 the General Directorate filed a cross-action with the 7th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court requesting a sum of TRL 7,650,721,062, claiming that this sum had been overpaid to the applicant.
7.  On an unspecified date, the 7th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court decided that the case before it should be joined with the case before the 4th Chamber of the same court.
8.  On 14 July 1999 the 4th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court requested the 7th Chamber of the same court to submit the file of a case (file no. 1999/724) which was related to the case before it.
9.  Between 14 July 1999 and 3 November 2000 the 4th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court repeatedly requested the 7th Chamber to send the aforementioned file.
10.  On 3 November 2000 a copy of the file no. 1999/724 was submitted to the 4th Chamber of the İstanbul Commercial Court by the applicant.
11.  On the same day the first-instance court awarded the applicant the claim in full, plus interest at the rediscount rate, running from the date of lodging of the case. The court dismissed the General Directorate’s cross‑action.
12.  On 14 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
13.  On 23 October 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification of decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Uşak.
5.  On 2 July 1999 Mr A.Ç. filed a criminal complaint with the Hatay public prosecutor against Mr M.Y. to whom he had sold his vehicle with registration number 04 M 3070. He alleged that, during the sale, Mr M.Y. used fake identity papers and gave him fake bonds in return for his vehicle.
6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant bought a vehicle with a registration number 64 AF 984 from Mr M.O. to use in the course of his professional activities and registered it under his name in the Traffic Registry.
7.  On 20 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor found that the vehicle which had been sold by Mr A. Ç to Mr M.Y. was subsequently sold to the applicant with a fake registration number. The prosecutor therefore ordered the confiscation of the vehicle.
8.  On 28 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr M.Y. for fraud and for forging false identity papers. The charges were brought under Article 503 § 1, 522 and 350 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 8 October 1999 the criminal proceedings against Mr M.Y. commenced before the Hatay Criminal Court and the applicant intervened in the proceedings as a third party together with three other people.
10.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the restitution of his car. This request was rejected by the court on 18 July 2000 on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute.
11.  On 18 October 2000 the first-instance court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Hatay Assize Court.
12.  On 31 October 2000 the proceedings before the Hatay Assize Court commenced.
13.  In the hearing held on 11 January 2001, the court dismissed the requests of restitution of both the applicant and Mr A.Ç. on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute.
14.  On 26 June 2001 the court decided that the car could be returned to the applicant for his use pending the criminal proceedings. It set the amount of TRL 5,000,000 as a deposit. The applicant was unable to request the return of the car since he could not pay the deposit.
15.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court to allow the car to be returned to him, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit.
16.  On 19 September 2002 the court ordered the return of the car to the applicant, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. The car was examined for any damage sustained during its seizure before being delivered to the applicant on 2 October 2002.
17.  The criminal proceedings are still pending before the Hatay Assize Court since, despite an arrest warrant, Mr M.Y. has still not been found.
6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Chekhov in the Moscow region. He is the pastor of the “Christ's Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians (Церковь евангельских христиан “Благодать Христова”).
7.  On 9 September 2002 the applicant applied to the Chekhov Town Council for permission to hold a service in public between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 22 or 29 September 2002.
8.  On 20 September 2002 the deputy head of the Chekhov Town Council refused permission. In particular, he stated that the Chekhov Town Council had on many occasions informed the applicant that it was not possible to hold services in public areas in the town (squares, streets, parks, etc.). The applicant was advised to hold services and other religious rites at the registered seat of the church or on other premises owned or used by the church members.
9.  On 26 September 2002 the applicant challenged the refusal of the Town Council before a court. He alleged violations of the rights to freedom of religion and assembly.
10.  On 11 October 2002 the Chekhov Town Court of the Moscow Region examined the applicant's claim and dismissed it. The court found that, pursuant to the domestic law, public worship and other religious rites were subject to an authorisation by a municipal authority. It further ruled as follows:
“The contested refusal is lawful because it is justified. As the Church of Evangelical Christians practices a religion that is different from the religion professed by the majority of the local residents, and having regard to the fact that in the Chekhov district there are more than twenty religious organisations of different denominations, a service of worship in a public area held by one of them may lead to ... the discontent of individuals of other denominations and public disorder.
In these circumstances, the contested acts of the Chekhov Town Council cannot be deemed to impair the rights of the 'Christ's Grace' Church of Evangelical Christians as they do not prevent it from holding services in religious buildings or on other premises intended for that purpose.”
11.  The applicant appealed. On 4 November 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 11 October 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Krasnokamsk, the Perm Region.
5.  On 23 May 1999 the applicant's son, born in 1981, was drafted into military service. On 17 October 1999 he was killed during military operations in Chechnya. In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against the Ministry of Defence. She claimed that her son was sent to participate in military operations in breach of statutory provisions since he had only served for four months while it was only permitted to send for military operations servicemen who had served no less than 12 months.
6.  On 13 July 2001 the Krasnokamskiy Town Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 50,000 roubles (RUR) and costs in the amount of RUR 10. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  On 1 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.
8.  On 9 November 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the Moscow Department of Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.
9.  On 29 November 2001 the Moscow Department of Federal Treasury returned the writ to the applicant and advised her that it should be sent directly to the Ministry of Finance.
10.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.
11.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of Finance concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
12.  In the reply of 30 May 2002 the applicant was informed that the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of Defence. However the latter did not take necessary measures in order to execute the payment under the writ.
13.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of Defence concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.
14.  On 25 June 2003 the sum awarded on 13 July 2001 was paid to the applicant.